thing to do, serious responsibility we have in congress. it's beyond the simple statute it's our governing document. ..

it requires two-thirds. we are bringing this up in a partisan way as part of a partisan effort that attracts little to no democratic support rather than working together to try to require congress to balance the budget each year, which in the past many members of my caucus have supported. so i think again, think we could go even further than the mcgovern amendment and specify a budget to be considered but i strongly support and i think it is reasonable support my colleague from massachusetts to amend the constitution especially since we don't know how many amendments we are looking at. we would have three days to consider those and i urge my colleagues to support the mcgovern amendment and i yield back. >> yes, let they just say as you know, measures that are considered on the house floor under suspension of the rules under both political parties come to the floor with literally

one hour of notification, and nothing can pass this house under suspension of the rules without a two-thirds majority. and, there are -- i think the arguments you are making about the gravity of the constitutional amendment is a valid one so i'm going to encourage my colleagues to support the mcgovern amendment. >> i want to thank a chair for his recommendation. >> we haven't had a vote on it so i am saying i am to encouraging my colleagues to vote on it. we will see what happens here. any further discussion? if not the vote occurs on the mcgovern amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. my gosh, the mcgovern amendment did in fact fail. further amendments? if not chairman. >> i don't have an amendment that i but i do wish to make it very brief comment. in my opinion yesterday we were in accounting la-la land and

today in my opinion, we are in gimmick plans. this is a gimmick, and in my view and i gather that it is a new and not improving gimmick. thank you. >> mr. chairman, as the rules committee representative the budget committee mr. hastings you know i have always found -- i have enjoyed our dialogues over seven months here but to describe what happened yesterday as budget gimmickry -- i'm sorry. [laughter] i thank the gentleman gentleman for correcting that. i have to say, i don't know how the house was run before i got here seven months ago, but what happened yesterday was a bill was brought to this committee that was scored by the congressional budget office

using their january baseline and those numbers were presented to each and every one of us as scored by the nonpartisan congressional budget office using their january baseline. then, it became apparent to folks that the new march baseline was going to change those numbers and instead of rushing back bill to the floor and i know it has happened in this body over and over and over again, this leadership team said no. do you know what? slow down. we have an opportunity to do it the right way and so to describe taking a step upwards so we can do it the right way as loblaw, perhaps it is, given the near totalitarian way this institution has been run in years past but i could not be more proud as a freshman member of this body that we didn't force it through my way or the highway. we said this is serious.

there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. let's do it the right way. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> all i want to say to you is i am deeply appreciative of the fact that you and i and others on the committee have had extraordinary dialogue and fundamental disagreements, and yet respectful of the positions that we take. i have in here 18 more years then have you and i want you to know that there are occasions where the majority has taken a cbo score and said that is great. and then, you can't have it when you wanted and then don't have that when you need it, and that is what has happened here. you are a critic of the institution from time to time and its transparency and so am i, and i gather that we will continue to have that dialogue. but this is an example where you like the cbo and i see many

examples where your party didn't like the cbo and i might add mine has been on both sides. >> you are exactly right mr. hastings so again that is why i speak out. that is not what is happened here and it does this process a disservice to suggest that is what happened. it did not go back to cbo for gimmickry and it did not come back from cbo with a score that folks want it. it just came back from cbo with a score that it got. at it went through one time under a january baseline, one time under march baseline and we just got what we got. we got will be what we got and in fact it went the other direction. i mean it went that direction. i ordered it to go the other way. i don't want anybody to take what has happened here and say this is an example of what not to do. i want to tell you as someone who is new to the institution this is an example of what to do

and that partisan nonsense you describe continued to go on? i suspect it will display both of our protest that i don't think that is what happened here today and i'd be happy to yield to my friend. >> my objection with this process is that you brought this bill before the rules committee yesterday and then we have an amendment here today and nobody can tell me what programs would be impacted, what the human cost is. let me finish. when i'm finished. i mean, i think that this is more than just about you know a process. it is about policy and the chairman of the budget committee wasn't even here yesterday. i mean i know you are in the budget committee but. >> let me answer that question because to continue to pose it as if it is actually a question, again, surprisingly i am a huge opponent of regular order in this body and go to bat time and

time again to preserve regular order. so if you tell me let's post things on the web for 72 hours and we post these things on the web clearly you have not read this bill, mr. mcgovern. if you did you would know good and well that there is not a single social security cut in this entire program. there's not a single medicare reduction in this entire program. 16 pages. it is capped. it is capped. >> i strongly disagree with him that somehow social security and medicare are protected. they are not. >> reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. that is why we put things out there and i'm glad you are asking the question because i have got the answer and for anybody who is wondering, let me tell them right now. let me tell them right now, if you want to know what the priorities are down this bill you go back and look at h.r. 1. the single most open continuing resolution debate this institution is ever had and you

will see our funding priorities there. if you want to know where we want to go, go back and look at the april budget debate where we proudly debated in this house every single budget resolution that was brought to the floor of this house. every single budget resolution that was brought to the floor this house, and we share those priorities. what this bill does, now granted -- coming from one of the most conservative parts of the country i might have rather gone with a my way or the highway approach on this because i'm pretty sure i'm right on this and i'm pretty sure some of the other folks are wrong but instead of that, instead i lost that debate. instead of that, what this bill went with is the let's bring it to this institution and guess what? with have some allocations for the house in the senate can actually come to conference on appropriations bill. wouldn't that be neat? now i know you haven't seen that in this institution the last how many years, is it for now?

>> nothing as draconian as this. >> by draconian you mean having the first time in half a decade that's that trio to a allocations will apply to both sides? a step forward, not a step backwards. that is the only reason i speak up mr. chairman because i just cannot be more proud and this is the right way to do it and i hope we do it this way again and again and again and i thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would also refer the gentleman to page 39 where the membership of this committee who is going to make these recommendations is laid out. lays it out the members of the joint committee who are trying to make sure that we forthrightly -- and this was part of the deal that is evidently not on agreement, that is not the deal now -- but to

where the house will soon try to work together. the negotiations that took place in the white house may or made not have ever materialized anything written down but they did have discussions. this will enable the proper designation of representatives of both bodies to empower them, to sit down with an agreement that it will require seven votes. >> at the gentleman we just yield. >> i would yield to the gentleman. >> i guess my problem with this whole thing is you haven't come up with a number. then you said we have come up with this number and we will let somebody figure out how to make the cut. i think a better way to do this is to go through these programs without equity and say you know, maybe we need to make a cut here and maybe we need to increase here but coming up with arbitrary numbers, you know, don't think it is the right way to go and again i would just say i think it would have been

better at least from our side if the chairman of the budget committee had been here to talk in more detail about the policy. that is my only point. >> reclaiming my time. i think if the gentleman mr. ryan were here he would have to say -- he has not been appointed a member of the committee. there is no way really to understand who would be appointed, but the point is, we are process driven in this institution is addressing the needs of the nation, and that is that we cannot continue spending more than what we make. we are in a nation where we spend more money on unemployment compensation then we are receiving revenue in by employers. and when you have more money that is outgoing for people who are hurting and on unemployment then money that is coming in from employers who are making

money, that is a serious problem. >> i would just be curious, how many people will lose their jobs as a result of the cuts that are made in this bill? >> you know i appreciate the gentleman asking the question. i don't know, but here's what i would tell you. what i would tell you is this nation has lost some 6 million net jobs that as a result of what i believe our policies directly related to president obama in this house and there is no way to get around that. i said about where mr. hastings is when we did the bill in february of 09 and i read the report they came from the joint committee, where it talked about the stimulus, the huge stimulus and i went to page eight or nine of that report, talked about it and several members of this committee accused me of trying

to sabotage the bill. i said this is from your report, where it talks about unemployment and dead will rise substantially and unemployment will occur. this is directly from the report and it was dismissed. we talk about whether you accept them permission it comes from cbo or not. it was unilaterally dismissed by members on the side and all i was doing was reading the majority report. so, look, we could stay here all night in debate this thing. >> we are not going to. >> and we are not going to put in fairness we have to say it will be a process that overrides what might be a bad thing and a good process is going to help. i yield back my time. >> by unanimous vote to having just met pass the mcgovern amendment the vote occurs on the motion of the doublemint from dallas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] >> the clerk will report the total. >> eight yeas. >> i will be managing it for the majority and mr. slaughter for the minority. thank you very much. hope everyone has a great evening. we don't have any more meetings planned for today. i just want you to know that and what we will do at this juncture, i think a lot of it depends on how this issue before us is disposed of in we will certainly keep the gentleman informed of what the schedule is

but we don't have anything set. thank you all very much. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house rules committee has approved the rules for the new version of house speaker john boehner's debt ceiling bill, setting up a vote on the house for tomorrow. it is a closed rule, meaning no amendments are allowed in the legislation. we also heard the chairman talk about bringing up a balanced budget amendment to the constitution later in the house schedule with one days notice. meanwhile house speaker john boehner says an estimate from the congressional budget office

shows the revised plan cuts and caps spending by $917 billion over 10 years. that is more than a 900 billion-dollar increase in the filing authority in the legislation. you can see live coverage in the house debate on mr. weiner's debt limit plan tomorrow on c-span.

be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. president. >> madam president, i rise todae to discuss the urgent need to raise the debt limit. i would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of our purgation to represent our constituents best interest and those of our great nation for at this late h houre with the deadline for an agreement fast approaching the consequences of inaction are mad clear. by they have been made clear by economists and they have been made clear by credit rating agencies and they have been made clear by the federal reserve and buyer treasury secretary andeenm they have been made clear bye a respected leaders on each side of the aisle. soon, if we do not act, they b will be made clear by the marke.

itself.he i keep hearing some members talk about the august 2 deadline as is if it is no big deal. they say they have their owneal theories about when the real deadline is. that just leaves me dumbfounded. i for one i'm going to take the treasury secretary and virtually every economist at their word.ot we need a solution before august august 2 or we risk economicstr. catastrophe. who there are some members who are essentially saying that the treasury can pirate sites payments to avoid default byt b getting social security checks out shouldn't be a problem. i we pro. heard their republican member onon public radio this pt weekend say that a pirate for social security checks taxes in the trust fund.

well, yes, we have $2.6 trilliot in assets in the trust fund, but they are all in treasuries securities, not cash. i find it just stunning that a a member of congress let alone a i member of the budget committee understand the most basic functioning of our government. lit now, if there is no debt limit increase, treasury may be able to juggle payments to get social security checks out on august 3. and i'mo sure they will do do everything they can to do so, but august 3 would be just day o one of treasuriesf and provides prioritization strategy. august herd is the date that about half of the socialchks security checks go out.anotr but we have another round scheduled to go out on august 10

and another on the 17th and another on the 24th. in fact the treasury sent out over 70 million checks a month.o august 3 is not the end of the problem. it is the beginning. about a month ago, the bipartisan policy center briefed members of the house h republico caucus on the actualf implications of the august 2t deadline. what we could pay and what we couldn't pay.ow jay powell, the former undersecretary of treasury, under president george h. w. briefing. it outlined his research on what is likelyesat to happen on augu. he suggested that in the month of august wehe could pay our det interest, social security checks, medicare and medicaid, vendors for defense projects,

and unemployment insurance benefits. that is what we could pay. but, no pay for active duty military. no benefits for veterans. no federal loans for low income studentslo about to head off to college in the fall. no pell grants.nt no federal government employees, includinglu counterterrorism agents in the fbi for example. no border agents. w now, before wee default, we coud have time to make this sign for all points of entry. that is just the tip of the

iceberg. that is just a sample of things we definitely could not afford to do. you can take that down. that doesn't even address the global economicobal impacts of playing so close to the edge and thethe dollar would he devalued. our creditd. rating with a downgraded. it would cost us much more, much more to borrow and to pay p the interest on our debt and us, our debt wouldould actually increasi more importantly all adjustablel interest rates would rise including creditudin cards, more and student loans. new loans of course would be moremo expensive. im these impacts could have the dogs us for decades if notth

centuries. and this is serious business and we shouldn't be testing thisadli deadline.hat yet, that is exactly what some of my colleagues aremy doing. i worry that republicans in the house are blind to research, deaf to reason and are simply ignoring facts that are contrary to what they want to hear. to route this debate, conservative house republicans have stood in the way of a deal and we have offered them some pretty sweet deals and they have walked they treated the august 2 deadline as an advisory, as optional. they suggested the treasury could figure something out. to prevent a the fall. senor now they are opposing senatort reid's deficit reduction plan o

because of how it calculates some of its savings. specifically at issue is reid plans $1 trillion in savings in winding down the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt

ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it saves

$1.3 trillion more in savings then the boehner plan such as i. is. you know, i often hear the republicans say the corporations that corporations are sitting on trillions of dollarsse of cashi, instead of investing, expandings and creating jobs because businesses are facing so much uncertainty. well, senator reid's plan offer, certainty.pu suddenly republicans want a short-term deal, one that would very welll put us in the same crisis again in six months. what kind of certainty is that?t now a short-term deal would not offer our businesses and markets the certainty that they need and a short-term deal may very well

induce a credit downgrade according to standard & poor's. yet republicans say they prefer a short-term deal over senator reid's plan which would take us through the end of next year. i don't get it. it just sounds to me like they care more about politics and abo winning than they do about their constituents well-being.nd about the prosperity and economic security of the nation. their hard-line and cavalier attitude is frankly dangerous, very very dangerous. playing fast and loose with the fact is reckless.

the american people deserve better than this. t we need to raise the debt now ceiling now and leader reid has shown us the way forward. cut i don't like all the cuts in wer this package and i wish there were increases in revenue from those who can affordan it. but i know we have to pass it. u because it would keep us from defaulting. and it will do so responsibly and we owe it to the american people to pull back from the brink and pass the reid plan so we can averter disaster. we owe it to our constituents t and we owe it to our children. madam president, i yield thefice floor.en t

>> madam president, come to thee floor today with a great sense of urgency. we are less than one week away from reaching our debt limit. if we fail, and we falter, the united statesun of america wille irrevocably fractured. we are not an impasse. we are at the edge of a cliff, unless congress acts. we are going to go over it and what will be the consequences oi it? if we do not meet our obligations to pay our debt, it will result inwill a default, ad default will result in enormous increase in interest rates for all of america that is so worried about tax increases. i have got to send a real redntt alert. g when interest rates go sky-high, because of our failure to act, it will be the biggest tax on america that weam could have and

a tax at the kitchen table. it means if you havee a variable mortgage, it will skyrocket. if you have a student loan, that interest is going to increase. and if you have a car loan, forget it. the payments are going to beno enormous. so, we needrm to face what this means. lit raising the debt limit, we needo to prevent the default so thatr our bond rating is not lowered. now, i've never been a gun talking about bad ratings, but this is really a crucial one.rul we now have a aaa bond rating, a so what does that mean? treasury bills or other government security benefits but particularly our bond bills, it is as good as gold. now, if we are downgraded, we could just be a tin horn, tinn.

cup nation. this is not the united states of america. this is not not w what people ft and died for. the when people say they represent t party that wants to defend thehe constitution, we all have to defend the constitution.he and right now, defending the constitution in defending america is to lift our debtet ceiling and get the hard work or number one dealing with our debt, but also dealing with another issue of job growth. t so we have got to get to work. instead, we are busy at work laying the blame game, squabble is not a solution.squale i but i believe we democrats do have a solution and i think the solution does lie in the reid proposal. the reid proposal before the senator from nevada, the

majority leader has offered a substantive comment is real and, it is achievable. madam president, i was on tvyesa yesterday. they saidhey sai oh you are liby democrat. i don't know if i'm a liberal. d i don't know if i am a conservative but i will tell you what i am. i i'm a die-hard democrat. diner i think about the people.bouthe i think about the ordinary people and their day-to-day needs and when people talk about what kindple f solutions they need and they want everything on the table, what i wanted the table are the things that affect the kitchen table and that is why i support the reid proposal. it is an achievable framework for avoiding default now and b downgrading of our bond ratingon now. what does it do? impta it has three important elements. one is timing, to take this through 2012. election. election. it is showing s that we were we' seriousre and we are substantivy

second, it has really important content where we reallyen do cun federal spending and it is it' observable and it is it' quantifiable, and it is verifiable. and number three, gives us a nuh path forward to deal with the important issues of entitlement and revenue reform.hy so why can't they take it? i am really puzzled about why they can't take it. it okay, whows knows who is going b be in control of either the white house or the congress then? u but its. can't be about us. it is not about me. it is about we. we, second, let's go to the contente there are substantial cuts there discretionary spending. defense spending that does not affect readiness or military healthar care, and it got rid o.

earmarks.itot we got rid of earmarks a long time ago. actually cuts athe the house voted for in the ryan budget. so a few weeks ago, they said yes to the cuts, but when we say yes to the cuts, they say no to the proposal.on i don't get it. most of all it is not whether i. get it. it is that we have to make suret that we get a solution. what i think is important about the reid proposal is it is 2.7 trillion cuts. now understand cbo scored it, and they say it is 2.2.$2.2 2.2, 2.7, that is real money. that is real money. and it shows that we aree're serious. it also provides this important path forward called the jointn committee.o

it is not a commission where it is going to be outsiders who ari experts from think-tank environments and -- what it is as members of congress. memrs both sides of the aisle, both sides of the dome. let's get it together with them and then let's have this committee where we didn'te move forward on the reform as well as looking at entitlement reform. i want tot be clear that windwhen, if in fact, the horror of all horrors becomes when we fracture the standing of the united statesates of america, nt only in the financial markets, but in the standing of the b world, ite will have very serios consequences. first ofus all, to benefits.ave you know the president is going to have to pay the bills basedon on whatever money is coming in. he won't be able to borrow.w. borrow.ot ht be able to

silly t-bill would not have the same value that ite he is going to have to pay our r bills. so what are the benefits? to he has got to make sure that if they are fighting to defendica america, while we are squabblind around and screwing around, we are going to pay our troops. my god, did it ever occur to tro anyone that our troops are troops wouldn't getop paid? ian. is going to be tight. so we pay the troops. we are p certainly going to payt our veterans benefits. they might not be in the same amount be but we will kind of squeak through.urity. it will be social security. well, maybe the checks will go out the amount that the socialwill security offices will be closed. so benefits will have a direct impact. where is he going to slow down

the trickle of money? to state and local governments.d sooe what does that mean? community development park grani money, education and so a on. gg that is really going to cause enormous layoffs at the state and local level of public employees, but also the contractors. the asphalt contractor, that person who handles the office hs machinery. all that small business they love to romanticize over. minority contractors are goingao to have a a big impact and thens takes us to the government will definitely slow down or not payt ator all contractors.bi whether it is the big defense guys that employ thousands and thousands of people. of course they're not going to pay the small to medium-size businesses like in my own state that does information technology. now, we are about to destroy ths reputation and solvency of the united states of america. ameri

we are about to destroy the a reputation and solvency of the united states of america not only for one day, but for abe decade and a be the rest of the century. don and this is not being done by an outside power. we are spending $700 billion on defense and we are destroying ourselves by a self-inflicted wound because of lyrical dysfunction, political rigidity and political ideology. what the heck is this? and i could even use more intense language. we cannot allow this to happen. so i say to my colleagues, looki one of myd colleagues said to me yesterday senator mikulski what it would it take to get you to the table? i said give me a plan and 30 republican names behind it. i will see if i can support the

planning get 30 others.'sp, so madam president i'm no my time is up but i do want the time to be up on america. let's comer. together.ns. let's stop being democrats.t we at stopping republicans. let's say, call us what werica should be called, an american and what americans do? when the times get -- when the times are tough, the tough get going. make let's get going. let's make the tough decisions.t let's putic politics aside and e america number one and get usr back on track. t madam president, i yield the floor. >> madam president? th >> the senator from new york.k. >> first i want to tangle good rand and colleague from maryland for her great words. she comes from the heart of maryland and the heart ofe america. very few people i've met inany politics in my many gears in this endeavor have an a understanding of how average people a feel than the great senator from this senator of

maryland.s of this body on both sides of the would listen to her and her common sense intelligence, wem t would be in a lot better shapeer than we are now. now madam president i rise todac to discuss the deadlock we haver reached in the debate over raising the nation's debtraistwn ceiling. two nights ago theig presidentnt spoke and put the current stalemate in the context it belongs. the result of a small block within the house republicans that refuses to compromise, even one e inch.heir it is on their shoulders. we have perhaps 100 republicans on theepub extreme right who sen be leading the congress, the nation over a cliff. d they don't even care about the idea that we might default.

it is appalling.to and yet, they seem to be callinb the l shots. for the last few weeks the president hasag met over and ovr again with house republicans, trying to meet them halfway and in some instances more thaned t halfway. recd he has offered to cut record amounts from our debt and made cuts in programs that would be extremely painful to our side of the aisle. this minority in the house has come to think of compromise as a dirty word and it appears as ifn they can't take yes for an answer. if you don'tsw care about debt reduction, you don't care about debt ceiling rather -- you can't get something done. now speaker boehner who is a good and reasonable man wants to do the right thing and h compromise but he is struggling to reign in hissin caucus. instead of leaving the house, speaker boehner is i being led y a friend in his caucus that tanks default is okay.

this week speaker boehner offered itof to step plan that simply kicks the can down the row.on it resolves the debt ceiling only for the next fewly months. and with the new cbo numbers it will inevitably resolve it for even a shorter period of time.hn and that puts us within a fewe months right back here at square one all over again with the same anxiety, thean same gridlock, te same problems we face today.me s what sense and t the good lord's name does that make to justovera repeat this over and over again until we drive off the cliff. no it makes no sense. now, madam president, all weook have to do is just look at how difficult this crisis has been to resolve after year oftiatns negotiations.. aon does anyone, does anyone think it would be a good idea to do this all over again in less than

six months? the speaker's approach is not only wrong, it is dangerous. it would lead a cloud of default hanging over our heads for thedm next several months undermining confidence in u.s. bonds. market analysts analyst they rejectedpe the speaker's approa saying it could actually bring a some of the same bad consequences as the default itself. it could even cause a credit rating downgrade. of just yesterday the ceo of nasdaq testified before the judiciary committee and said quote, the longer the deal, the better it is for the markets. christian cooper, current seane trader was quoted by bloomberg news this morning saying quote, from the markets point of view,n a two-stage plan is a nonstarter because we know now it is a amateur hour on capitol hill and we don't want to be painted intc this corneror again. there is a significant risk of t downgrade with a deal that ties

further cuts to f another vote only a few months down the roads he said it better than any of us could say a comment he is a currency mohamed al-arian the ceo of pimco one of the most respected investors in the market that he and best as i understand it hundreds of billions of dollars. well, mr. al-arian or expressed concern the other night that quote the political ground ispoa being prepared for a short-term stopgap compromise and he warned that this could push stocks down andto leave the u.s. death rate quote extremely exposed to a damaging downgrade. what he said is that the kind of plan that came over from the house that is attempting to be debated in the house. i don't even think it'll make ii over butll the kind of plan beie

debated in the house with quote, create an extremely exposed, dan damaging downgrade to artou nations debt rate. even republicans rejected a short-term increase in the debt ceiling as recently as last month. sho dave camp, republican chairmaner of the ways & means said, doesn't givet you certainty. cer ideally you would like to get'dl that settled and not have toik continually -- have a annually hanging over issue. that is the republican head of the ways & means committee. house majority leader eric cantor said, quote, if we can't make the tough decisions now, why would we be making those tough decisions later? l i don't see how multiple votes on the debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want toe go. is my preference would do thisnc thing one time, putting off tough decisions is not what people want in this town. that that is from majority

leader cantor, and yet, he isea leading the charge to send over the very planned, the very type of plan he has criticized only a few weeks ago. republicans have apparently flip-flopped on this point. they arehis now saying they want the same kind of short-term deby ceiling increase that they opposed on substantive grounds previously. as the republicans have rep flip-flopped on this point. but make no mistake about it, short-term s deal is still a nonstarter in the senate and t nothing more than ahan glide pah to a credit downgrade and we will not allow it. f while republicans continue pushing for an unproductive plan, senator reid's land, thefr senate plan, offers real potential to finally break this impasse. it makes difficult choices. it includes almost a trillion

dollars in domestic discretionary program cuts including defense. this is serious belt-tightening in the plan would be the major e boost this morning when congress' official scorekeeper confirmed that the firstnfir dre cut more, a lot more than the t boehner plan according to the congressionalo budget office. the senate draft bill achieves almost $1.3 trillion more inhan deficit reduction than the boehner plan.peat let the repeat that. according to cbo, the senate draft bill achieves almost $1.3 trillion more in deficit reduction than the boehner plan. the report also affirms that the senate plans $1 trillion in savings from the iraq and afghanistan war. that is cbo saying it.em not someoc democrat who is hopig

and praying for an easy an fix.u this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans, who have tried to call the savings againy make even though they included t them in their ownor e budgetm and voted for them onlya few months ago. kno if it was okay in their budget, it has got to be okay in our budget.buet you can't just change your mind based on who's budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, sincee the cbo only d measured thera plans first draft before additional plan savings were incorporated into thesa bi, the final version of the senatel planl will achieve even deeperan savings when it and is filed on the floor. as politico reports this morning, quote budget scores the senate democratic deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over alternatives by speaker john boehner.er." lastly, senator reid'snt proposal allows for joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings

down the road to get our countro back on the path to economicn growth. all in all, this is an offer that republicans can't refuse. i all of the cuts and senator reid's proposal have beenside supported at one point or another by the republican side. and it meets the two main laid out at the house republicans.nt of the first, speaker boehner said the amounts of the increase much the amounts by the amount of spending cuts. our proposal will do just that. second, speaker boehner said the tax increases must be off thewet table. even though mosthoug of us would prefer tax increases, our proposal includes no revenue raisers whatsoever. we don't want tax increases on thex middle class.reas o we want tax increases on then wealthy and the elimination of corporate loopholes.m to notis have them is a hard may decision for many on our sidewer who know that we are going to s need to do that for serious debt

reduction. so, bottom line in conclusion, we are getting dangerously close to august 2 over and overe in democrats have shown a willingness to move in the direction of republicans. it is time for speaker boehner to cut off as extremepporve republicans that refuse to support even the plan that he craftedplan to meet their reckls demands.s the read plan is our bestto a compromise. is a c comompromise we need soon before theprom markets rendereda truly ominous judgment that will set our economy back for years. i yield the floor. >> and president.. duin i wanted thank my colleague from new york senator schumer as well as senator mikulski from f marylandro for coming to the flr and speaking about the crisis that we face.ilin a debt ceiling default which will occur in six days if we do not act. we will have it or found negative impact on america's standing in the world and our economy at home. it threatens to stifle job

creation and to slow down the ge business growth that we need to get out of this recession. it is the most serious impact hu can imagine at a time when we are facing this kind of recession. this f debt ceiling is being exe extended or should be extended under law that was passed in de 1939 where we have extended the debt ceiling 89 different times, 55 times under republican und presidents, 34 times unde democratic president in virtually every president hasret done it. the president that holds the record for h the most debt ceile extensions in history is ronaldt reagan. ronald reagan extended the debt ceiling 18 times in his eightpem years. during that period of time tripling thehe national debt. the president who holds the next record as president george w. bush, who doubled the national debt in his eight years and raise the debt ceiling ninet shd

times.e they should have been done and donely routinely. many members ofho congress housc and senate who have come to the floor and said we will never e vote to extend the debt ceiling i think are not deemed honest with the american people. for the debt ceiling is paying for things these congressmen and senators voted for. they came to the floor and said let's go to war. let stay in war. let's spend $10 billion a month and the president said that isrw congress's decision and now i have to borrow the money to keee that promise in thesers members. congress are saying oh no, we he don't want to have finger -- make any fingerprints on the debt ceiling extension. you can't have it both ways. members of congress cannot askn for spending and then fault thew president when he has to borrow money to make it happen. exaly w that is exactly what they arerid doing.k the president has drive to work out a bipartisan agreement to deal with this debt ceiling crisis. he invited in republicans andesd democratic leaders with vice president biden to sit down bsi work out ana agreement, a w

bipartisan agreement.ee about four weeks ago the house republicans majority leader eric m of virginia stood up and o walked out.ut he said i'm walking away from these bipartisan negotiations. i'm not going to be be pay a pao them. leave it up to speaker boehner. speaker boehner went into negotiations with presidentthece obama, talking behind the scenes about ways tot w resolve this. that was a positive thing. but, then he announced he was walking away from negotiations. not once, but twice. most recently last m friday. n, monday night, television sets around america are tuned in as the president of the united states explains and this crisiss then speaker boehner explains his point ofw. view. speaker boehner said monday night he had a plan, a plan that would solve this crisis in a responsible way. that was monday th night. but then came tuesday. and as the dawn came on tuesdaye

morning, and people took a clost look at the boehner plan, here is what they found.ders found business leaders across america were saying it was a terrible idea. the idea of a six-month extension to then t debt ceiling and going through this mess again and again would harm our e economy.k at and then the congressional budget office took a look at tht boehner plan. they talked about monday night that it does not add up. s it doesn't cut the spending that speaker boehner said it would. and then finally, 100 members oe speaker boehner republican caucus walkedd out on him yesterday saying it was ang bad plan, so here we are six days away fromx d a deadline, six das away from a manufacturedsis. political crisis. the it is time to do the right thing.re senate majority leader harry reid has aid proposal which addresses this responsibly. it cut spending and it has already been scored, has it nott by the congressional budget office and t that it turns out , speaker boehner's plan senator majority harryse reid's plan

doesn't that cut spending to move us toward a balanced situation. secondly, it extends this debate he the next year so that we don'teo put our fragile and weak economy through this again and again. that is the sensible thing.or it also calls for the creation of a joint committee to deal with the long-term deficit. i've been involved in thishe conversation and with a deficit commission and again began withe gang of six. we can do this on a bipartisanbs basis if we are honest and open with one another. majority leader reid leads us in that direction so madam president, we face a deadline igx dayse from today. the boehner plan on monday night has disintegrated before our eyes. businessen rejected by leaders. r it has been rejected by the congressional budget office.y has been rejected by the houseii republicans caucus. a it is time for a little humility on both sides of the aisle are

bothro parties. let's put all the squabbling aside. let's focus on america's economy, putting people to work, saving businesses and handling our debt in a responsible way. we can do it. we we can do it if we stop listening to the politicalwi extremist and start dealing with the center of america which calls for leadership and wants us to put squabbling. madam president ijectio yield te floor. >> madammr. president, as the senator from illinois just pointed out, today we are six days away from a possible default, which could plunge this country into a serious crisis. in fact, there are some who view that maybe it is not exact a sia days. it could be a few days more. there are those that argueon somehow in a bizarre fashion that somehow we could prioritizt

our payments to the most urgent requirements such as our veterans, such as socialcurity security. i wonder if the greek government came up with that same proposal as they went into bankruptcy that they would prioritizet t spending that is remaining. but the point is, the point is today we are six are days away. the point is the markets are jittery. investors are concerned, and most importantly, ournstitu constituentsts, our constituents are frustrated. they are confused and they arert angry.think .. it done. work it out." another person says, "i'm sick

of it." says davis, 73, a retired economist. "they're playing games. here we're trying to pull ourselves out of recession and they can't come to an agreement." if anyone thinks that the reputation and the approval rating of congress and the presidency has improved because during this situation that we find ourselves in, then obviously they are out of touch with their constituents and the american people. not only are the american people concerned, not only are the american people upset, but i quote and ask to be made part of quote and ask to be made part of director from this morning's paper "washington post" that says frustrated executives say political impasse slows hiring

and investing. are business leaders are growing in excess read it with washington and they say the dysfunction in the political system is holdings them back from hiring and investing. so where we are average americans worried, social security recipients are entitled calling our office is and the. are markets are already jittery. most economists believe that ifs we allow this deadline to pass that we will see of financial markets which obviously have san significant impact on savings and people's holdings in the stock market 401k etc. mea ayaan meanwhile, here we are thr

with a situation that on the other side of the capitol our republican friends are trying tl come up with a proposal that will receive the support of the majority and over here who still believe somehow that there's la congress to pass a balancedcons. budget amendment to then constitution. i will take a backseat to none in my support of the balanced constitution 13 times i've for ordered for it. ngwill vote for it to mauro. ami but what is really amazing about this is that some members are ao the leading we can pass a t balanced budget amendment in the constitution in this body with it present representation and that is foolish. f

oat is worse than foolish. that is deceiving many of ourtem constituents by telling them just because the majority leader amendment legislation that comehow through amending the debate we could somehow convincd the majority on the other side ofe the ogle to go along with t balanced budget amendment of the constitution. that is not fair to the american people to hold out and say we let until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it's not fair and it's bizarre,y and maybe some people have onlyx been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. others know better. others know better. i am confident someday when we

in the constitution and continent the overwhelming majority of the american people support it. free, i am convinced that that is the only way that at the end of the day we will get spending under control, because i have seen in the past congressctionsd enacting strong restricting onde spending snduch as the legislatn the required spending cuts with them fngailed because the congrs couldn't find future congress, and that is why i am remained committed to a balanced budget amendment of the constitution, but somehow to think or talk to our citizens if we have in a ne senate in the short term and tha next six days we will pass aonsn balanced budget amendment in tho constitution is unfair to our constituents.

it's unfair to the constituentsh frankly to come up with a plant the so-called reva plan that isa for smoke and mirrors and frankly doesn't entail any increase real spending cuts itsd under the president of the united states to lead from behind.'sthunited sta it's unfair the president of th united states not come forward with a specific plan perhaps to be considered by both bodies bug only to go out and give lectures and act in this partisan fashioe as i've seen in this address to the american people so noo wonder, no wonder the american people's approval ratings of the president and the congress are literally at all-time lows.jour"

about an editorial in "the wall street journal" this morning.etn the bulls street journal was not known to be especially on its editorial page a liberal entit periodicals.reality it's entitled a gop reality tesi and talks about the debt limit is headed towards a combination with president obama reduced to pleading for the public toeadine support a tax increase and aea speaker john boehner in the and senate majority leader harry reid releasing plans for the next to last realistic options. house rep the questionub is whether of the publicans are going to help mr. bonner achieve sycophant progress or the name of the unae unachievable and mr. obama a . obam victory. akes, mr. obama recognizes the mistakes threatening until the ctical mov boehner plan and a tactical movy to blocking the democraticthis support and this editorial about the two phase plan the congressu would authorizeld a trillion in

the new debt return for 1.2 trillion that has since been scored byo. the cbo, and now i believe on the house side they are struggling and i hope succeed coming up with a wil proposal that will authorize the cuts that we had advertised. ps, but, again, unless the plane passes mr. obama couldn't requested the additional soo $1.6 trillion increase he wouldi soon need. reasonable package and many senate democrats also don't awt to vote for tax increases before 2012.tics, he talks about the critics,uttig about people putting out statements telling republicans,a telling the speaker to come up with a better solution. club usually sensible club for growth

in here deduction the political arm of the heritage foundation are scoring a vote for the plani as - on similar grounds. plan. but what none of these critics i have is an alternative strategy. none of these critics have an alternative strategy for achieving anything nearly as fiscly fiscally or politically plan. the idea seems to be if the g.op house gop refuses to raise the debt ceiling of a default crisis or gradual government shut downd will ensue and the public will return against barack obama and fail to raise the debt ceiling which escape all the blame thana democrats but have no choice but to pass a balanced budgetentitl amendment anemd reform entitlements and the tea party could return to middle earth having defeated more.f this is the kind of crept political thinking that turns

christine o'donnell into gop senate nominee is. the reality is it will be raisee one way or another and the only issue now is how much fiscal reform and what politicalallout. fallout. b if the plan fails in the house,h the advantage shifts to the plan which would raise the debtllion ceiling by 2.4 trillion in oneet swoop through 2012 would come without a tax increase but also to .7 trillion in mostly fakeess spending cuts like less government waste, fraud and weed abuse.thate're how many times have we heard we, are going to cut waste, fraud $i and abuse and a $1 trillionns i savings from the structural down t iraq and afghanistan that aro as fiscal reform this is worse than mr. bonner's plan. in the speakers made mistakes in the negotiations, not least

interesting that mr. obama once serious fiscal reforms butn thanks to the president's overreaching on taxes, mr. boehner now has the gop position in sight of a political and policy victory. this is something close to it cn becomes law democrats will haven conceded more spending cuts thad they thought possible and without giving the gop to raiseo taxes and without being able to blame republicans for the debt limit crackup or economic it damage. the conservatives defeated theet plan we will not undermine the house majority leader they woulo re-elect mr. obama in making the entitlement state that muchak harder to reform. let me say again, i believe the plan crafted by senatoror mcconnell that would call forwhn significant cuts in spending which wouldn't have raising taxes, would in the short term be the most reasonable solution.

i hope that on both sides of the ogle we could work together andh negotiate a way through that. ti but i also think the motion derided by some idea of a congress, members of congress both only from both sides of the ogle, from both sides of the lge capitol to sit down and work out a long-term solution to our fiscal committees -- calamities it recommendations by that committee be subject to an up or down vote only is the only way wehow man can go. how many times have we had a budget resolution that passedith the various committees to comens up with savings and always theyf are phony or dismantled on the floor of the senate? of the only way that we are going to have the courage to

make these cuts is with a equ committee composed of an equal otmber of republicans andmocratb democrats on both sides of thete capitol who come up with tough i believe the american people is vote,support it. and if it is not an up or down vote, we know what happens be around here and let's be honests let's have some straight talk with the special-interest to spr prevail and they would dismantle the tough provisions of thistoui committee would come up with. and i sayco to my friends on ths side of the aisle, this is a rnlanced republican and democrat. we only control one-third of th. government, and that's the house of representatives. so it seems to me a balancedatis equal representation is to our advantage. lajust want to say a word againp

about the plan and first of alll i congratulate the majority leader for coming up with the plan because certainly the president hasn't. spectrum auctions is part of it. that's going to provide billiono considerable period of time. tel i can't tell you the number ofte options of spectrum.ual there is an annual basis, aaking cop-out that prevents us from making tough decisions. most egregiously the majority leader's plan provides a billioo dollars to pay televisiontelesin broadcasters who returned unusea television broadcast spectrum. the broadcasters spectrum for tk free we're supposed to ask the taxpayers to give them a billioe dollars to give back the t spectrum thathat the zero come d they own? very interestingly savings in

the freddie mac and fannie mae, for $30 billion in fannie mae and freddie mac reforms.n freddi in the proposal that mentions me that we would point out that wey have already spent $150 billion0 in fannie mae and freddie mac te that we've never seen the endrse of. and then of course, the large claim that there's a trillion down the war mechem iraq andands afghanistan, and of course thate is phony. every latinos -- everybody knows we are winding down a war in afghanistan and iraq. days so, here we are six days away, and we still have members of and congress who are saying we have to pass the balanced budgetdmeno heendment to the constitution. t we have members on the other side who are saying we have tode

raise taxes. so we have a president of the come united states who so far has refused to come through with a detailed plan of his own. that's called leading from behind.e it's time, it's time we listen e to the markets and listen to ou, but most of all its time we listen to the american people and sit down and seriously negotiate something before we ae face a situation where we are depriving the american people of the fundamental right of havingd a government that doesn't rvices deprive them the essentials dervices, goods and entitlementk which the government. a madam president, i yield the pr, floor.f >> madame president, i am here today with a sense of optimism.g i know all of us are very cntry,

concerned about what's happening in the country, the debt ceilinm think we have made remarkable w. progress over the last couple oe weeks. if you think about a couple of weeks ago people are crafting after a legislation so we are sort of au political vote if you will but here we are today, we actually have the leader of the united t states senate who has proposed the bill that has to do with spending.use ha the republican leader ofs int te house has introduced a bill that has to do with spending cuts anm candidly, i am kind of uplifted. i mean, we are finally on the right topic now, and candidly the colloquial term from tennessee we are beginning to cut the gap and what i mean by r that is people are actually nowo focused on the right issue. we'a so madame president, i w tant tt say we've all talked about the e

august 2nd date. we talked about the fact that our debt ceiling has to be be raised by them and certainly a lot of ambiguity in the financil financial markets right now a lot of them have been watchingty the treasury department and think the treasury department longer.re to but one thing thatin we can all agree to in this body, we dovery have until august 2nd i think everybody would agree somehave people think we have longer. i see the one thing that almostb everyone may agrodee with in ths augu body that we have until august . august 2nd to solve this problem and i hope we will do so. the other thing, madam president, that's becoming part of a sort of i think of montrosy and the understanding for what the country is many of the uynancial markets, the people that actually by the treasury nn are not as concerned about the debt ceiling. ceiling they want it raised, don't get m

me wrong and as i mentioned, we'll understand august 2nd iste the date we have until to do tht that.aise but now they are more concerned about the fact we may raise the debt ceiling and not actually do the things we need to do to get our deficits in order. and many of them, first of allgh we of the atrating agency that t says if we a don't get at least $4 trillion of savings in some form or fashion some of them a e going to downgrade, but the goi office on the banking committee ksr folks are constantly talkinl with folks who buy treasurys ths actual puerrchasers of the treasures are telling us in oure office if we don't do something that shows 4 trillion in saving they don't believe we have the political will to do those w as worthy of a borrower and we are going to be paying more.

the second point i would like tl make, madam president, we have . proposal on the floor i mayme gi catch some grief back home for saying this, but i think senatot reid has actually tried to put something forced to help solve this problem. to i believe that. i think he's been working w closely with senator mcconnell. and senator boehner also i knowh he has a different set of circumstances, is trying to solve this problem.this pblem. but here's the point. re at a place we are now actually talking about the righf topic, and we know if we don't a tt forth a solution that is atg least 4 trillion in the order of magnitude that we are going to be downgraded it seems to me that people that on the other a, side of the of my democraticwant friends would not want to support a proposal that extends the debt ceiling that is less pd

than 4 trillion because the president would be presidingt over a country that was w downgraded while he was president. it seems to me that republicanse who have worked hard to presshrh this issue in this devotees gond through tremendous acrimony ande people who are watching this are incredibly frustrated and angry it seems to me that republicansf who are on the verge of abl something to actually solve the problem would not either want to as a matte support something. as a matter of fact i would maks the statement i think that it's true anybody that votes for a t urckage and this body to addreso the debt ceiling and deficitisne simultaneously that isn't of thl order of magnitude that is reall and scored a goal,e those are different definitions ofs $4 trillion is actually voting for a package that likely causes

so here's what i would say. we have senator reid is offeredi a pronkposal scored with $800 billion i think it says three trillion. cementer boehner's offered aas package and he, too, had scoring issues with his package. this body should be pressing the the leaders on both sides of tha l2st mac leased if present a package that is real in the area of $4 trillion, or depending when you decided to do with that package, but if you voted for package that was less than that, you would be casting a vote toeg raise the debt ceiling but at ci the same time probably cast they country into a situation where we are downgraded and that so madame president, we have sio

days left. i know people buckle aren last nervous. we had thousands of n people ang that we wait until this long too actually get serious about thisc issue.on about the scoocncern about social veterans. the understand that. i empathize with them.en't but we have not quite finished g our work, and we actually are oc the right topic. rei and again, senator reid hasl. offered a proposal. the house has offered a neither proposal.on strong neither one of them are strong i enough yet madame president, foo what it's worth i know you know this but i'm talking to people on both sides of the ogle andk r people i think our reading what the markets are doing and becoming increasingly concernedg about considering voting for a f package to wait and of the presiding officer comes from the center of the universe as i relates to those kind of issues and people are wising up, a lotf of private phone calls takingthe place and people are saying wait

a minute. let's think about this. mkets se markets, which matter by thw way because they buy the bond, are now saying to us they know we are going to deal with a debt ceiling, and i think they are. - they know we're going to deal to d with the debt ceiling by the they are but now they are beginning to think we are not going to do something that iso h actually the real solution.ere a so, i'm here today to talk to mo friends on both sides of the ogle to say let's communicate with our leadership and say wes have six days left. we have an opportunity to dosayg something. we've all been saying this thate rise to the sum all moment thats we actually solve this problem.n this is not a republican oro democratic issue. cufnlt it's going to affect of the body in the co wuntry and we aref finally after all this time focused on the right subject wi matter. we really are. i met with a group of senators and i am going to meet with

little while. let's make sure our leadershi on both sides of the capitol unt understand that we believe that voting for a package that is less than 4 trillion in savings over the next decade that's real and score level isn't getting d. done.b madam president, i would assume -- i know senator reid'sll approaches the to do it all but once and maybe there is a way tf craft a package between now and has $ next tuesday people can4 vote on that have $4 trillion in the d world savings. i think that might be difficult but maybe something isnd closeds happening. behind closed doors that we arei nott' aware of. i know that on the other side oe the building people are actuall concerned about welcome actually on the of the side of theuilding er extension and i know the president has been concerned about the short-term extension and in fairness i think theuntrl

business community around the country would be concerned about a long short-term extension. ths i know there is one that carrieh out months and months and we still don't have a solution to t the problem to read that creates the kind ofid uncertainty people on my side of the aisle and onie the other side of the nile toe some degree have talked about as si relates to the business pre environment. i'd like to vote for something that solve this problem on theht front end but knowing the b acrimony that's taking place but not least on the right subjectm- matter finally- the acrimonycriy i assume they hav really short-term extension in their back pocket to the extent we don't come to this conclusion by next tuesday and they're

ready toin pull out and they knw it's p something that can actuai pass both bodies. so madam president, again i think c we are so close now because we n are finally focused on the righg thing. i think w to something that solves our country's problems for a while around the world and the country to know that we have the will and the courage to deal withissh eiese issues and at the same c time address the debt ceiling should we not quite get there be this tuesday and another is a lot of complications and we quie bodies made up of a very different groups of people ive would assume our leadership and the understand what is at stake has in their back pocket a very short term extension but can be

that used as a solution that mabeyatn takes us to a place we can all agree helps solve the country's, problems. so again i've heard people have been coming down the floor back and forth and criticizing each side of the all.today -- not i more optimistic today. top. i'm not over the top, but i'm ti more hopeful than i was when wee were not focused on the right issue at that time focused on on casting blame and now what we we have disposed bodies looking ats packages to actually address th. deficit we have before us.t so i hope people on both sides of the ogle will talk to leadership and let them knowport they have no desire to support e something that doesn't solve ths problem with all that we've gone through in the country and as a body over the course of the last couple of months, and i am hopeful we will figure out a solution that actually meetsids that test in other words avoids

the crisis on tuesday and at thc same time avoids the crisis that will occur if people look at the country as a downgrade identitye because we haven't shown that we are willing to at least deal ow i'd with $4 trillion. i'd think most people know i thha would like to do a lot more tt,n that and i offered a bill the was bipartisan that did a lot more than that. k but - weno all know that theyur based on the expectation where the country is today the fact that it's got to be a minimum of $4 trillion i think a lot of worked people have worked towards that goal to even set up a processsne that's short of that doesn'tit'f it's like you to be king. the we are be going through the aggravation of the next sixards months working towards an aspirational goal that we all t know hedoesn't solve the credit,

rating issue.than you f with that i think you for youror time and i yield the floor and hope we come to a successful conclusion soon. i stand ready and i am talkingty with people on both sides of the aisle to come up with a solution so that we either solstice on p, the front end or put in place au process, quick process that we takes us to a place we know thay we've dealt with the problem ane with that i yield the floor. sps >> many times the loss of the weeks with regards to the issue at hand and clearly the time continues to escapes us in which the day of reckoning is come to the debt ceiling issue and i'vet said from the beginning that int my view of the responsible notrb to raise the debt ceiling it would be as irresponsible if noe more so to raise the debt ceiling without reducing thein spending and getting our books

more in balance and moving us id the right direction towards a balanced budget in the future.rt i recognize this can't becognize accomplished overnight, and irig recognize there are those who bring different points of view o and perspective to the senate floor. this is apresen body of people o represent individuals who live in all 50 states and have points of view and velocities andthan p tackgrounds that are differentes represent from the state of kansas. i've been a strong supporter of the legislation in title cut cas and balance and i believe thatae it's not just cut cap and gro balance it is cut, cap, balance and o growth that we could do se much for the country both in the fiscal sense, the idea that were can better pay our bills if the revenues are increased by putting people to work in c creating the economic climate in which people can find jobs ando

improve their situation and regarded them to their jobs ands in the process of doing that the revenues increased to the federal treasury, and it was back in the days of president clinton what we came to the the closest that in the books balanced and the most recenting time and while there was aocrats spending restraint and this p agreement about thero spendingg programs or bigger government in my view the reason we were had s balanced budget is the economyai was growing and so on the again ask my colleagues to pay m believe was the 2010 election of the economy and the desire for people to have a better life tor save money for their children's education and retirement and be able to be satisfied the job they have today and tomorrow and there's a number of things we can do in regard c to the regulatory environment, the taxe code and the credit trend policy

that allows us to increase exports of agricultural and manufactured goods and an energy policy that reduces the reliancr upon foreign energy and give greater control over its cost. but i do believe the time has ayme to reach an agreement, andm we anxiously await what action the house of representatives ma take. that we are and i want to share with my colleagues in the senatm a letter and e-mail the received from one of my constituentspoinw named gina reynolds and she expresses this point of view very t appropriately where we ae today, and asking if i could ind share with you what she wrote te me, she indicated this was thee. first time she'd ever written td a member of congress and here's what she had to say that i hope we will take into account. a while we bring philosophies ando

viewpoints, approaches toiew, government to washington, d.c. in my view there's an good opportunity for common sense and good judgment to prevail. firml here's whaty she says. i firmly believe the united states needs to start livingstrd within our means. ustrated beyond belief with the inability of not congress to do their jobs andunk ensure we do not throw the country back into recession. hae when alladi and my husband are h ri jobs. if we work hard, pay taxes and try to raise our children the md right it absolutely boggles my th dlng mind we cannot country ceiling compromise on the issue that isl critical to the financialcan markets and the average american citizen.most ford is us, the middle class that will suffer the most from lost jobs to the lost 401k and savings. we need real tax reform and t entitlement reform for even i though i'm 42-years-old i do noe believe i will ever see theas hn

social security and spending ths cuts. a n the congress has hadow months to work on this issue and now theer time is to act in the best interest of the the people, not. political interest groups and hn some ideology.ren m's sad to say but i honestly don't know if my children willre have a a better future than me.b i know that there's a lot of tough decisions to be madee regarding spending and taxes, ft we only get harder by defaulting on the obligation. i am a fiscal conservative and generally vote republican but i. do not blindly follow any one'sy path. a i try to use my vote wisely andn pledged loyalty to my god and me country, not a political party t to it i believe we have they greatest country on earth, butcg our inability to compromise comes to stop acting likeg fathw spoiled children saddens me. a the founding fathers were able to compromise and write a document that stood the test oft time for 235 years.e? can we not now do the same?

please do the right thing for the american people, the ones frustrated and angry and hurt bt the self producedo in pact.for i want h to thank gene reynoldsf for her message to me and t members of the senate for taking time to communicate with her united states senator and me as a member of congress and i think she in many ways express is a so conservative yet common sense point of view that so many kansans have, and i often think too many times we are caught in a circumstance we find an inability to resolve. sometimes we are tracked by theo political party and that in my o view while we ought to have strong opinions and a solidvatef philosophy, many to make certaio we are motivated forf the right reason and the good of america is of the forefront of our mindi i indicated in my speech when ir first spoke on the senate floor edw four months ago as a unitede

states senator that when i neede a perspective as to what we need to do ball down and those things a los less important and i will put my walkingsh shoes on and i will re up to the lincoln memorial, and now you memorial and walked past the the vietnam walk and go back by a victory in a war memorial and in each of those locations i realize that no person and dec memorialized in those settings r fought and died, sacrificed for the country for purposes of republicans or democrats but because cthey believe they have an obligation to serve the make country and that in that service to have the opportunity to make life better for their family an. future generations of americans. we need that perspective and it's not the fight betweenht thi republicans, democrats, it's america. we owe those who sacrificed in

military service for the countri and particularlyce inion that service that kind of. obligation that we will do what is right and i know my shuntedi colleagues share that and we thf have to berom reminded about we the priorities have to be and the focus must be must be so i appreciate the sentimentsens and expressed and would indicate ase american citizens and some michaelene as a member of theess united states senate, our primary responsibility as citizens is to make certain that wegene pass on to the next generation of americans then country called the united states of america in which we maintain the freedom and liberty con guaranteed by thestitution consr and allow the next generation oy americans, our children, e grandchildren and young men and th women yet to be born, people wee don't even know, the opportunity to pursue the american dream come and i think's the kansas constituent of mine expressed

those very well, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to see that we do the right thing for the future of ad the nation, and that this next e generation of americans canthing pursue that thing we all idolize and believe in the american dream. i yield back madame president.r? >> the senator from virginia. mi >> let me first of all complement the senator fromments kansas for his comments and hiss approach. he made a few comments that we haven't heard enough of in thiss chamber or the other chamber in the last few days. before he was a democrat he was the american and i want to sen compliment him on those sentiments and rise in that same vein because whether you are somebody from kansas, northom in

carolina or virginia that keep saying why can't you get this be done why can't u-boats be willing to give a little for the country's first?or of i never thought i would say someone who had the honor of serving from virginia and served the flo i ornever thought i would be standing on the floor of theve s senate five and half days away from america defaulting on our obligations.e yet most of the debate, almost all of the press conferencesbeen have less than about solutions and more than about who is to blame? yet when folks in the gallery ot

people watching at home like most americans trying to get through an unbearable hot summeo you wonder who these folks wesin hired to get the people's business done. i have been involved with a group of senators and over the last nine months that have doney something i didn't think was lif extraordinary but in today's a daylight is prettygr extraordiny come a group of democratic and republican senators who've saidi the most important issue we facd is to get our debt and deficit under control and the only wayer we can get that under control is to sit together for hours on end reasoning together our view through something as perhaps iin think basically as america is a

compromised and after months anr back and forth the last tuesdayy frankly was built upon the workm of a previous year of work of the muppets and republicans ands independent and business leaders commission a days in remarkable thing happened for a couple days in this body andpert they said was close to $4 trillion the tax reform, take on entitlement reform, cut spending and might just be a ou. half out. and then we got back to was going to score points in the next 24 recycle i desperately ti ispe and pray that at this r moment in the country that we sr

will rise to the task and make sure that with the world on us that we do our basic job to mak. sure the united states of america doesn't default next weo tuesday. the only way i think we are going to get there isrhet if we lower the rhetoric rhetoric and finger-pointing and recognize it's going to take ideas from both sides, but it is going to take a change in attitude from w some. press as a congressman who gave a press conference in the last day or two to paraphrase winston ani churchill and said we are goingn to fight you at sea and in the air to make structural changes the way t washington, d.c. operates. is he going to fight?

people who say that maybe america and americans want us to work together in compromise? this kind of sentiment goes this crisis. there has been a lot of talk com recently between the other bodyt the only way to solve this sol problem isve an amendment. constitutional amendment. well, i point out the stateses have that kind of amendment to o have to balance the books, my state of virginia north carolinh meets that goal. a lot of states have that amendment in place, and i don't a'ow what kind of accounting bui i haven't heard many points to california and say that is a balanced budget.

so, some kind of process the argument here isn't going to solve the problem. we have to make the hard choices, cut spending, reform entitlements, reform the tax code to generate additional wee spe revenue. we're spending at an all-time high, 20% of gdp. collecting revenue at a historit low, 15% of gdp.ure it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out any time the nation's budget has been inn relative balance it's been what we have been roughly between spending andend and b revenues n 19.5 to 20.5%. folks watching said there is a plan we are going to further thf senate has said we will be withe you on an equal number of democrats and republicans.ing-pg so we, are going back and forth was going to win each day.

w i don't know who thissman is particular issue is, but whenbuh you have got a fifth, roughly wo one-fifth of the house to at wil least say they are on record too never vote to increase the debt limit, i wonder when they took the oath to uphold the law of pa pay our bills have that withhose commitment matches with those promises and those political igt they are advocating this thh will never change our way or the highway bridge. be in the amendment ought to beg abo talking about is basicallyurning restructuring the constitution to t gryov tero turn the governt into a parliamentary system. you get to choose the chief executive and you get to control

the legislature and pass anything you want. the constitution and the genius of the constitution a matter hoy you have a senate and president and have to work together with stryker or country over the dray cliff and it's as american as arything i have ever seen.ime we and at the same time we hear other members say maybe we just need a little more economic shock to make us do the right

than. what are these folks thinking of? week. to spend down about 400 points this week, an awful lot ofonlyoe americans who only now are starting to recover from the financial crisis of two years thr ago, an awful lot of retirees who sold the 401k plummet two ta years ago to have seen the nestt egg to get retirement or get through rough times. 4 we are down 400 points. m how much more stock market we decline do we need before we alt have the cover to do the right10 thing? a thousand points? another million americans out or work? h for more people out of their homes because of the tax t'crease would result, the reala increase would result in thenext rise of the interest rate to

happen next week? s others say let's kick the town can down the road was something dbeing discussed in the house.s doesn't matter whether it is democrat or republican. it matters because that approach will result in lowering of the wh people's eyes glaze over when at you hear about the debt rating and the debt ratings otherries h countries in the worlde with a aaa debt rating that means we are kind of the gold standard and the debt rating is not onlyy only means what we have to pay in interest rates will go up not just the government if you havee a school bond or state bond you, have an auto loan, home mortgago from student loan, businessha trying to expand your business

the same folks who say we will never look at don't seem to mint rate rise because of a default or downgrade of debt doesn't that take more money out of our americans pockets i just don't get i don't get and i've been pressed about this issue for t months on end. i do hope we will check ever democratic and republican handss not as democrats and republicans herst, that we not only did ovet the debt limit, which hopefullyc is a convonoluted process we wit

but we also recognize getting ev okay, we are done. all that does is by a bit of time to decide whether we are t issues of not only how we startn with spending cuts which will by part of the down payment but how we really make sure to the entitlement programs, so many on both sides of the nile but prott particularly this side of want to attest they are actually there ten, 20, 30 years from now. the notion they are not going to it's not space and re jpublican. it's the fact thank goodness a n lot of us are living age lotthes renger and the facts remain.6 -e 16, 17 people paying for every social security retirees.

now there are three. we have to make sure my kido mae coming your kid, that there is social security in its frame have work. o at the same time weur have to he colleagues on the republican to side recognize we've got toakes reform the tax code in a way the makes it simpler and generates additional revenue. g the only way we are going to get there if and when we get past the 2 august 2nd date is if weth combine that effort with a long-term debt reduction plan. i am more than open to any valid balanced comprehensive bipartisan plan that's around. e the effort for the so-calledsent gang of six or the third of the senate that said this is worth considering isn't perfect, i cac

assure you. some even say it may not meet all those three things it is, tt it's comprehensive, it's bipartisan, and under in the it analysis it does what the county country desperately needs, starts to drive our debt to gdpt ratios which is a fancy way of g saying can we maintain our books on a path for the fiscal stability.et frankly we want to get back toe what we should be spending our h time on here which is cutting it start unleashing american innovo creativity and innovation and hp again. but that is not going to happen if we spend all of our timend fh running back-and-forth about how we we got here or with short tet plan best meets the short term

interest of the next five or sir days. i for one believe the plan to senator reid played out is not perfect, but it gives us the and time to deal with this debt ands deficit problem to ensure thatda we don't have the debt downgrade.unfortunatel the plan isy, being debated in e house right now. it may have some merits but thee one thing that is clear is thatd it will lead to a downgrade.whee ksthough rating agencies whethel we like them or not they are the folks who set that standard. so i would urge again the folks making statements saying we are going to s fight you on theou it beaches and in the air theseur hour fellow americans. ame

and if you don't like our systef of government be honest and cnge change the parliamentary system. if you do honor and respect the constitution, which we took an oath to uphold, recognize that is ae constitution it puts inckd place checks and balances to have us all gave a little and to recognize when we get out of bee in the morning we are not a rep, democrat or republican but arepe americans first and foremost. mr. president, i hope and pray f we will find the path through these next five days that we won't do the unthinkable. i've said on a couple of stations and i'm sure it will come back and bite me we don't do this we should all get fired. because the fact is the most m basic promise we've made and iag

can't think of anything that is more quintessentially american than making sure you pay your hr bills and your obligations. let's get that done and workputi together to assure we put iniven plan the long-term comprehensive bipartisan approach that'sthe rt needed so that we can get thee nation back on the right fiscal path but more importantly back on the right path to ensureh t everybody gets a fair shot inuc. the economic growth we seek so much.loor with that mr. president by yielf the floor and note the absence offfffffff a quorum.

..

cnet out current and future editors researched the hacking in the u.k. panelists examine ruppert murdoch's media holdings and the relationship between politicians, police and newspapers. this 90 minute program is hosted by the london based outline club. >> he's one mysterious friend. unfortunately, we often do  be seven times near. but i imagine you're a

troublesome.  am  tied up with three schools. bush seems to be assuming a new guys that hasn't taken his case  you to adjudicate. >> not exactly. >> now, tell. t do they dare. i mean, at least he didn't hack

whatever else you did. he's just like us. we can't really discuss because somehow we've gone below the state agency. aughter] well, i'm going to ask each of our panelists to address themselves to the most immediat question, which is transparent, given that treece mirror has ven today's policies. when you're on deck, could you haggle too long? >> a long time ago, you can remember i was editor f until 95, editorial here for about three years thereafter. he was struggling.  was enough to get a signal, let alone hiking to anyone else's mobile. , i didn't hack. i would not condone hacking, nor would i have asked journalists working for me to hack.

it's illegal, i truly immoral. i have seen far too much. >> i'd like to know what slate people are going to be coming from. toby, i won't ask you whether you hacked because i'm sure you never did, but what i would ask you is in your position but demand as it were very knowledgeable of the inside, du to the stories being overblown? >> i think it's been fueled in part, not just by public outrage. one of the reasons it has tak on a long, long time for the daily mirror to be dragged into this story is because they are less days and it's not

coincidental that were negligen about pursuing making sure they this case. murdoch decided to withdraw his report for a 2009. he treated, the same sure you ow when murdock conveyed that decision to gordon brown on either of his 2009 speech, gordon brown said i will destro you.

>> what i was going to ask you really was, you see, i don't find that they were hacking the phone number. i can't imagine a e world, especially the estriol union where police can t kickbacks for limited info and that's surely not what we're talking about. we are talking about a major revolving door situation, in which large sums of money moved into the police and back into news international.  you talk about meeting news international. the links that were being mad with neil wooley was a man who  them arrested, he was advise in who subsequently had a job

advising the police commissior who came into the guardian said stop doing this. there is nothing in this twice. now, obviously that's not just out 25. police officer shouldn't take money. but anyway, it's a much smaller quantum been doing these thin where it's been said about many things in this whole sock a, bu i think you are being advised a if somebody comes subsequently arrested. you basically never do a pr police inquiry during all that time. at really does stink in the revolving doors of jobs between nba venue becomes a brilliant iter, but it just doesn't loo good. >> i'm always more intrigued 

john stevens who has been left latively unscathed. i mention in the other night on the injured neil show and the xt morning there is a tape recording imac convention phone on my desk from him, saying you will be hearing. you will be hearing. rlier in the week -- that w two weeks ago and unfortunately i have heard nothing. i have sent repeated e-mails  his secretary saying i want to hear. [laughter] really quite a lot because it was a very short sp that he moved from being the chief of the metropole to be in nature, one of the best eight columnists in the whole "news of the world." a remarkable turnaround. he he was a wonderful journalists waiting to get out. martin, i mean, the media standard stress may not be known to everybody. his greatest claim to fame i imagine it is not pcc.

>> actually probably a better description is not the founders of the hack campaign rather tha the standard stress. >> but to speak speak of both. >> okay, well, so a few of us t then fussing about this for a few years now and not getting very far. from eisai fessing, we could as her some inquiry two years ag a guardian investigation and 've consistently done so sinc that we've got increasingly frustrated and wasn't really going in there. a couple months passcard and i said we have to go hear some of the disparate people and organizations who want to be put into a campaign. we did that. we had a formal site and

prepared for the sixth of july. we had no idea about a story which broke at 5:00 p.m. on the fourth of july. so we brought forth the star today. that was part of the petition, which was signed by thousands and thousands of people, part as campaigning and pressing the party leaders for both an inquirer and the right terms than the rate tightening. >> and acquiring a foia? >> we specifically laid out in the original manifest are the areas that we thought needed to  looked into and included not the illegal information gathering, the relationship between the press and the politician and i was actually - the cycle entirely, but particularly where he had trouble and why we were to meet all of the leaders. we met clade command camera and then watch them through the wk that would be a successful inquiry to say you can't do thi on their terms. you have to do this because otherwise people will look and

say this is a stitch up >> well, toby, you hinted tha it was much wider than just new international, but it's obviously suited news international's competito empire, surely the focus on news international is in part because it's not a british operation. m wondering. i've been strolling through trying to find any other countr that is the third part of its media to be controlled by people who have no accountability in the country in which they're operating in. is that in america, australia, canada? most of the parable s >> that's when murdock became an american citizen. >> in deed. >> i think that partly accounts for why the focus has been on news international, but i don't think it is a big rea i think -- my feeling is that

murdoch had for a long time paid bogeyman on the last and h was targeted during frequently asked a cheese made of him and so forth. but when he threw his weight amongst tony blair and gordon brown, members of the liberal left had to bide their time remained extremely uncomfortabl by being in bed with someone wh epitomized everything that was wrong. it was the unacceptable state o capitalism. so in a way, their rage that ey had been venting about murdoch over the past few weeks has partly been fueled by a kind of self disgust that thy allowed themselves to be muzzle >> i think it's true that all o is new but there was a sordid

dark canceler in our midst. i am not saying that's with u.s., but there was some  ich we couldn't quite get our hands on and didn't particularl want to get our hands on. i'm wondering whether it's why we are in the mess we're in. >> i am the former editor of th daily mirror. there are a lot of others. it's a big club, wouldn't fit i this room. i spent most of my career -- more of my career working for rupert murdoch. and that tends to be fortunately at the mama overlooked. i went to "the new york post" and editor to papers for the australian and the telegraph in sydney. i've seen both sides. i worked with this really

couldn't stand when i was edito of the mirror. i just think it's a very emot to talk about -- i can retail rupert murdoch from news corp. and his power base. i'd actually rather l man. like a lot of journalists work probably at the senior level for him, i rather admire him, but i dislike very much th whole he has on the business. if that is the cancer of which you speak, then i would accord with that. >> on the one hand, he's brough people access to a world that they had no access to before, thousands and thousands of channels and had no sweat. so the upside is very great. i got, what would happen if 10 million people found the semi-he's been denied a license it's hard to imagine there'd be peace on the streets. >> would probably also have no

time, maybe snow sunday times, maybe even when he took over  n, ipc sold it to them -- to him and laughed their way to debate because they thought they oked at this at the time and it. in fact, he put page three together, put leery of land inside. he begot calvin and begot table generation of journalists in the which we may not approve. in doing so and not attacking sky and sky pushed the bounds football as well. it's pushed the bounds of television. you know who is a mirror mana punting for rupert murdoch.  need to be fair about this. >> it seem next bad perhaps. >> perhaps he could challenge it by suggesting anyone el without the purchase of possi

british aerospace design, who also said the purchase from the political classes that he has had? wendy ju report the number -- the number of occasions that direct access figures had?  i think i reported a story about what happened on elisabet murdoch's hen night when she wa in the back of a lemma with rious celebrities and rebecca and they were all aware and spotted in motorbike following em. call her lives. she said that may take care of

this. lled at the "news of th world" desk, bottled up a description and within a minute someone called back with his me and telephone number. she then called in and the limousine he was following contained not only the editor "news of the world," but the daughter of rupert murdoch and if he didn't execute a u-turn he'd never work in this town again. and off he disappeared. forgive me for reporting that just to add to the papers that may not exist feel the independent on sunday. i'm not sure the guardian and the observer and the guardian a present to something like 35 million a year would be losing much more than >> extend it by maybe 10 more years, the working life in this

country. >> i think we should quite quickly get into this sort extreme in any journalist discussion i don't get is been e case for some years. six months ago at the guardian  id for several years  a sense that my god, he he's no richard desmond. the man has put lots of money into journalists and journalism in the country. i wouldn't go quite so far is t sically say the man as his savior. i mean, he saved the press in is country. i sort of disagree. it really is not it's literally t about one powerful man. i'm sure you've seen the guardian and channel four but the great liberal left media nspiracy.

you know, nick davis was out there saying i'm going to bring down the most powerful man. of course it involves enormou powerful organization in the biggest selling newspaper in this country. to suggest somehow that the onl ason this conspiracy that gordon brown is going to break down is madness. u forget that gordon brown told everybody about what happened a week after milly dallaire had given politicians the ability to say i was scared of him. yes, yes, should've done something earlier. if it's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy against a culture that allows them to descend you uld have done, to allow a culture where people were basically saying, here's the numbers. mela should see what she said

and it would be perfectly acceptable to say i'm going to listen to this dead c mobile and delete call. at is so far and aw the cents. it's a culture that went horribly wrong. >> it almost seems a culture of immunity. they really didn't seem to fe as though they would be stopped by anyone. especially by politicians. >> it would appear as though -- you can almost be if you we there in that new zero, who is going to stop you from doing anything?  that i think is been a major problem. it's interesting now "the wall street journal" has its own ethics and standards committee, which is criticiz reporters who interviewed ruper murdoch for giving him but to topic. what was lost in this country, certainly i'm the only

representative here of the state and certainly from this day w we've lost is the pipe gray-haired editor-in-chief figure who couldn't put anythin in the paper, but he could stop ings going into the paper we've lost a sort of moral sense. >> use that they interestingly enough for most editing for t papers in australia for murdoch and their two editors in chief they would've been if i write because i was at the time, hard to believe now, but at the time is interesting, energetic, fido, desperate to bring down governments editor and the guys to suffer their price and say you can't do that. that's going too far. heated it and i hate the ada now that i'm proposing that we actually have to go back to something. we have to put some responsibility back.

it's no coincidence that the last four or five e "the sun" and "news of the rld" in the current editor of the mirror have all become the pop showbiz career. they haven't been n, ven't a news editors. this isn't for burro graybeard, but piers morgan was editor o ews of the world," 27, 28, colson, early 30s? no sort of ethical background. no overwhelming sense of somebody above them between the and the chief executive offics saying hang on, don't do that. don't go there. >> .of course this does have a semi-electronic media. we had a controlling editor. i would vote for jim gray. this is a very interesting

reality. and of course we obviously have to talk about regulations. where are you in regulation? >> i'm not in favor. i think that several reasons. one, i don't think that the print media will appeal to spea truth to power as often and as effectively as a list of who  subject to statutory regulation people say statutory regulation could channel four news have bought a stolen cd in order to break open the scandal? i'm not sure they could have. i think if you do suggest -- >> give you an alternative to this. i just need a program where we used secret filming and somebod hired by these landlords goes in with a camera in hi

button and films dreadful thi going on. now, the procedure by which that had to be done, there has to  checks all along the line in different people had to sign  on it so that if off calm cam to review it it could be justified. if not, we would be punished. >> that doesn't sound quite as bad as paying for stolen good if they disclose the public interest. >> i honestly think if someon brought that a lot and we were aware of precisely what the contents were. >> i think another reason to be very weary of increasing the gree of regulation  impossible to subject the ternet to the same degree of regulation that will only accelerate the decline. i think thirdly, this scandal

doesn't really represent a failure of the press' ability t self regulate. yes, the pcc in its investigation of the phone hacking.  it did have an investigation >> i was unaware of it.  it actually was the guardian primarily brought history to lead, so that is an example of the press successfully regulating itself, is it not? >> it's an all arrest pressing on it. it's not as if we don't have laws in place to prevent things >> the police are at fault. it's not because there is no statutory regulation of the press. it's because the police didn't enforce the law. >> partly. m not for statutory regulatio we came out with

regulation/share, which is about changing the current system. i think it seems to me there ar really four different ways we can go from now on. one is to sort of reform the current system, which is the preferred option of people from the newspapers and particular the tablet site. second is that they r independent regulation, which i think what they mean by that is rt of advertising standards association with the backstop,  lot with that. the third is sort of a  down forecast model spread across.  the fourth, which is think many ways the most interesting that people are discussing it always actually you redefine the law, so that

clause, strength in sum, can others and actually get rid of regulation. you actually take regulation away. and that way actually u2 wi cool thing to your point abou digital environment, which is s played in any around invention. >> in certain cases, for example you can have -- he lowered th bar significantly for ec arbitration and things that ople find it much more easily accessible. but essentially you have a very clear, very concise privacy law. you have very clear first endment defense. >> of privacy law, but not the first. >> its civil law.  that we can't have a first amendment if we don't have a constitution. >> that's another discussion. we cannot a reynolds defense, which the process drive

defense. we have a much strong clearer interest defense come which would mean  actually feel emboldened to do things like secret filming of stuff because they have much more clearer guidance i when they couldn't do it. >> i think something does have  have been. i'm against statutory regulation. because of the whole nation of holding powers that account. you're stuck. and the problem of course is have viable systems. as we know, we all remember tha is still such an issue, with th balance of evidence went agai newspapers, you know, always for them to try to bring the interest, even though traffic area. >> part of the proble newspapers and others are unwilling to argue on

to argue for restraint of of th public interest because have constrained during the types of things that have b done over the past decade because of the more clearly define the public interest, t less you need is is to justif doing things. >> and it became being  things like finding out who the are sleeping with, which is never going to work out. >> is the most interesting part of what is going on. they think if i were to be asked, there may well be occasions where one could justify illegality. and you know, when the means are stified by the end. but the idea of autumn fishing, trolling, just simply saying e's interest income he's interest and, let's listen to phone conversations and see wha comes out is definitely obvious i don't think we are anywhere

close to controlling that. and it's all talking about keeping the press out. we need independent regulation. but until you can impose some rt of moral structure on the press to control it felt, you know, even the most extreme tabloids until you can make them see that they have two  i think you'll always be the press versus any regulatory system or semi-regulatory system. >> him a hand high on heart turned out that this ip pc who have knowingly commissioned hacking. >> no because i don't k >> because in fact of course then i think you're hinting at this, it was endemic in the

tabloid and possibly beyond tha in the press. this is the mes is infected virtually all popular journalism in this country for the last two decades.  i had lunch with a notorious hacker, former tabloid editor and i asked that person, i can' really name he or her. i asked that person if he or sh would be prepared to commissi hacking. and here she said yes they  , but i don't think by news editor would've gone along with it. and he indicated that or it -- this is very difficult dicated where is he or she  it would've been quite prepared to take that on board, the middle order of these executive would have risen against them. >> the hackers so far accused

the jersey mirror papers attacking them and the associated newspapers. any accused the mail and of course we have a plethora of accusations against news international. but you know, one of the things we discovered in television i at entertainment journali in other words, stuff that gets around to the stars are and w they get up to is the most expensive form of journalism you can get into. it's extremely expensive ckiness fantastically cheap way of ruling out rubbish. >> can ask a question he work for the news of the world and was profession or journalism.x >> the question is, i don't think anyone has any doubt that

hacking is fairly widespread,x but is there a kind of "don'tx ask, don't tell" sort of policy on tabloids where it is at leas conceivable that andy cole said and rebekah brooks did not know it wxas going on quitexxxx >> i know the don't ask don'tx ask how culture was any part of the culture i was a part of the eiji said, john, a culture that's been in fact did allxx tabloid papers for thex last 2 years.xxxxxxxxxx >> will cut it off it days.xx >> so they "don't ask, don'txx tell" him sure it wasn't something that was fair, but there have alxwaxys xbeen,x "news of the world" in 1977 and there were always sophisticated even then, online staff, veryx

sophisticated ways of rexcordi interviews, but not that kind o drastic legality, genuinely itx was a huge surprise tox me.xx i mean, that amount of time.xx not in a period he has in thex right-hand column who has pymasterxxxxxx ways.pp >> so i think this is not thatp ppurepp in short, not the " ask, don'tp tell."ppp >> i thinkp if there is a cult they are come in as a culture that gallopedp away because an have no certainty of this, but i just have a feeling that becaus

of the lack of control within the industry itself andpppp certainly within my end of thep industry, there is a sort of we can do anything we like sort of feeling that has grown up and that has to stop.pppppp there's no two ways about it.p they should've stopped long ago pphese papers need to makepp money.pppppp ppnd the figure thatpp journalism you've talked about, celebrity journalism, they pgure that is the sort ofppp journalism that is going to pingp leadership.pppp it doesn't because circulationp falls just as fast as journalis increases. that sort ofppppp journali celebrity journalism inflict it uponp the public combined with circulation from the very first psualty has been newspapers.p >> invest getting but they'vep been doing after the figures in the guardian quietppppppp

>> you can only hope.ppppp pmean, i sort of disagreeppp sadly.ppp i look at the circulation andp actually people to buy theppp biggest selling paper in thepp country.ppp the people aren't out there going now, now, tellppp me a politicians. you know, they said both thepp cheryl cole speak with ashleyp again. and they'll buy thep paper.pp >> 88, 89, the sun was printing andp selling 4.5 million copie to save down to 3 million, a levelpppp below that in 20  50 years ago, the express soldp 50 million copies. kinnear has sold sold five andp not copies in the last 40, 50p years. there'll tumbling away.pppp

>> or something in the culture, the culture way or newspapersp which are used to selling millions of copies art desperat times right now and thepppp industry. pney is tighter than it's ever been and the demand to get a sort of scoop thpatp on a sun shift an extra half a million is huge. and inpp that order poacher,  can see that people are morepp prepared to take risks.pppp just one final point on thepp "don't ask, don't tell." i getp your point about whatp happened before. way to find interesting that most journalists, mostppppp particular tabloids of editors who go great story and then say where thatp comes from isppp absolutely inexplicable. >> what is absolutely true isp that i know dave and charlotte

huckleberries. the two questions thatppppp editors ask about any big story one is how much would it cost u in resourcesp and time?pppp and the other is, can we provep it?pp >> yes, can we say that?pppp and how do youp know?ppppp i'vep heard it.ppp it's there.pppp i listen to the voicemail.ppp >> that is how we all are,ppp whether where tabloid journalis >> can we stand about? can we defend ourselves that the person in question isn't how we obtained thep story?p p but how we got it is part of it.ppppppp >> we are operate in theppp lightbulb head of world.pppp >> there is an interesting thing here. they're obviously criminal investigations and none ofppp knowp exactly what was going o

but i'vep talked to lawyers, f example,ppp newspaper lawyer mightp say what the source of e story is are we sure, absolutel handed the time. and then we justppp read it  p are sure, if we hapve a gro to, i'm not saying you might do that. but they'repppp interesting here about practices inpppp newspapers. >> there is apppppp line. there is a line which i thinkp was passed with a lawyer wouldp come in and would sit and gopp through with you whpat he hasp read and what he doesn't like i would simply say, you know, pat's not publishable.pppp editors and i've done it myself they don't tell me what i can't publish you tell me how i can pblish it.ppppppp you're desperate to get thepp story, but we seem to have gone

beyond not for the lawyer hasp lessp influence.ppppppp >> it's the lawyers fall.ppp >> just before we open, one finalpppp question.pppp toby had to doubt it. that is the consequence ofppp august through ha ha is not muc about politicians come and mayp be quite a lot happens withpp murdochs, but the biggest consequence is likely to be prrounding the ownership of th papers that he has driven in.p and the next consequence couldp be either oligarchs for thepp deaths of at least two of these publications. >> is hard to imagine the print media been the biggest loser. i think it's good print mediap has more regulation.pppppp >> i always get peeved in newp

prk and say what on earth isp the point?ppp >> i think it's 40 billion app year. >> i think that was probably going to happen anyway whenpp prdoch. his motherpp is 102.ppppp there wasn't the same appetitep amongst the younger murdochs, particularly james murdoch top own newspapers that lose tens of millions of poundsp a year.pp and i think the fear is that no only will the press beppppp regulation, they also find harder to compete with other formsppppp of media, but m specifically the times will bep sold off to someone with muchp less appetite for losing the kindp of money.ppppppp last year "the sunday times"pp pst 45 mipllion according to 

publicly filed accounts involved that was lost by the times inp the way pmurdoch was able top subsidize the times wasp becau "news of the world" and evenpp with the news of the world gone and that's the seventh day merg quickly, news international is not going to have the money to continue to subsidize theppp so even if news corp. doesn'tp divest itself commentary topp mention the times continuing in its current form.ppppppp i don't enjoy necessarily disappear, but it will end upp being a shadopwpp ofpp its self, particularly bought by someone else.ppppp >> obeah final question.pppp has he been broken quitepppp >> he went no thankp you.ppp and rupert went maybe.pp >> he said no decision has been made as ofppppp yet.ppp which wouldp leave the door op

to sayp i haven't fully decide, but we're preparing and getting ready and everythingp else.pp p the interviewsp has beenpp tightened in place with h.r. an they are not jobs for everybody >> but everyone is still on the payroll.pppppppp >> we couldn't avoid that.ppp >> i think the other thing that gets lost in office, but we are in dangerp of losing them what pll lose is ap particularlyp reddish, uniquely british starp of newspaperp journalists in,  talking about the hacking at 79 but dave knows this, the popula but informative and entertaining journalism that doesn't happen anywhere else.ppppppp

everywhere else -- almost everywhere else you getpppp demarcates and occasionally boringp journalism or you get  really silly, trashy, redfish nobody believes it.pppppp youp don't get to really class act that is best.ppppppp that way you get the tensionpp ptweenp graphic artists, good writing journalist, headlinepp piters, people that setpppp agenda for the tv and the radio the policy press follows.ppp year in and year out, the agenda haspp been set a really goodp popular informative. >> wooden shoe expect that peak no way was it "the sun" thispp time.pppppp nobody cared which way theppp poody sun went.ppppppp i mean, that journalism you tal of hisp white "the sun" its po

and will the last person turnp out theppp light?pppppp >> and now doesn't matter what the line is because no one wasp affect the diet.ppppp >> if you take the lastpppp pection, "the sun" wasn't thep plan.ppppppppp "the sun" delivered as app coalitionpppp government.p it is far from the ambitions.p >> weekend politicians thought it was important --pppppp >> the public disengage.pppp they're clinging ontopppp t something other papers like ap sinking ship. they think it's the only way they can access those numbers i the population and still givesp them the feeling ofp power.pp but the public is disengaged and

not been influenced in a way to go.ppppppp >> i share james is feared that it maypp be that the tabloid s doesn't have the same bark that rpp once did, but it neverth brings something to britishrr publicr life, which we are nown dangerr of losing.rrrrrr >> it's an unbelievably low view of everybody.rrrrrr >> you'll be introduced by thes people.rrrrrrrrr >> i mean, look at the storiesú brought to you by "news of theú world." theú vice chairman is exposed  paying off a or a blaster there the packers and scandal. i'm not sure that any paperúú other than "news of the world"ú wouldú expose that.úúú anyone who spent time in americ

knows that if something had happened, itúúú would become likely to be the truth about th rich and powerful in theúúúú national enquirer than you areú in "the new york times" and if úu like something might happen >> the thing about side can com know, it was a golden age ofúú "the sun."úúúú actually mckenzie loved him mor and loathing, but mostlyú losi but mckenzie captured the years and mirrored exactly whatúúú margaret hatcher was inflicting on the british public come in my view inflicting on the britishú public, but it had an incredibl únse of self-awareness, surety we back our troops, we do this, we go here.úúú nothing was too muchúúúú tr then theú last newspaper, afte theú last popular tabloid they try to educate its readers come in a trade to its readers andú

educate them rather than justú imitate was public smear and that went to in a handbasket.ú >> do not educate the people.ú ú there's no point in it.úúú >> here is the man toiling forú free schools and there's anúú editor who says do not educateú people.úúúú close the schools down at once. haveúúúúúúú them read "t is that right,ú toby?rrrrr >> now, it's a cool summary. i think the problem is hisppp journalism becomes wholly professionalized and journalists become part of the establishmen , then it becomesppp much harder for journalists top speak truth to power.pppp they've done a fantastic jobpp exposing the wrongdoing.pppp i dopp think without news of  world and tabloids haveb their bwings clipped and are extreme

weary of getting into trouble.b again, we're not going to haveb such an energetic,b rambunctio >> the changes areb happening there and on the digital mediab be massive.bbbb they'rebbbbbb enormous.b like it or loathe it, inbbbb america, and the local media yo could say is in some waybbbb reinventing the tabloid in anb online digitalb world.bbbb the equally in terms of peopleb being rambunctious and everything else come you spend a little timebbbb bobnbbb a lot of rambunctiousbbb and going on.bbb i think we getbbbb over nos certainly the case is newsbbb international. >> just about every story, my god they are an anathema forbb weeks or weeks of broken onbb twitter long before any tabloids got anywhere near it.bbbbb >> true, but the danger is if w become completely reliant onbb

social media and the internet t discover what the rich andbbb powerful are really getting up to, there'sb an issue aboutbb heritability. how can we trust? ru can't always trust whatbb read in "news of the world," but i think that's because we knowp the risk seems to liable.rrr whatever methods they used tor find out about cheryl quotepp getting back to ashley we can depend popn pipt ptpo ra than we can about whatever anyone happens to be tweaking.r >> questions from the floor,rr please.r r i'm a lawyer fromrrrrr  and i noticed that some members of the panel have suggested that in certain circumstances, it is justifiable torrrrr break  show me the lesson to be lured out of the scandal is the first

is the first be that the law should be that the law should notr be broken.rrrrrrr what do the members of the panel think of thatrrrrrr matte >> i agree completely.rrr i don't thinkr it's right.rr ru're right, such a basicrrr thing, isn't it?rrr i think the very important thing with the sort of debate and i'm sure unmixed this it is keen to row --rrrrrrrrr [inaudible] >> every journalist has anrrr inferior complex than sittingr next to a written journalists.r here today, gone tomorrow isn't even in the chip. [laughter] >> but they are is real journalism and it's certainly not guardian. very very good jo these tabloids.

i mean, even the daily mail, th last paper they try to educate with what is paul doing that is trying to tell everybody how to live their lives. so i personally don't invest great journalism. millions of people read it everyday to find out how to be a good one in. [laughter] >> there are cases where breaking the law is justifi >> we wouldn't have been able t find out about the mps expenses, abuses had someone not broken the law but they journalist organization not prepared to pay for it. >> let's return to the lawyer. here we have evidence that hundreds of elect the politicians breaking the law by all sorts of sub to fuse, a lot of tears as well, but that information is only disposable if we pay your fees to give it

to us, a complete breach of the law appeared as a right to a broken the law? >> of course it's not. >> the first principle, which has come out of this scandal the law must be away. >> you were to absolved all politicians? >> i think that is the first principle that should not have this, that the law should be obeyed. >> they allow for public interest defense that means although they broke the law, it was on every newspaper, every journalist would break the law if it meant breaking over this story. it's part of the law. >> it seems to me the questions i've posed is the heart of the scandal has to be dealt with by journalists. >> is clearly a very, very serious matter and extremely

unusual. it's very interesting the telegraph itself now has been in trouble for the methods it used to extract the attack on news international david did, even the pcc found not. >> the position is he's kind of reached a conflict between the different articles of the human race to free speech and also a conflict between the european human rights act in british thought. so the problem with saying welcome and they should just obey the law is you end up testing judges with far to much influence. >> there's no public interest defense. >> now, but there are things which is like nothing happened. >> it was a good fundamental question. thank you very much indeed. next in the back.

>> a woman. thank you, john. picking up on the last point as well, the way that i haven't yet seen a compelling reason with all respect why it has been now that this phone hacking story has broken, given that we know it has been happening for a couple decades or more. is there some sort of asked us what this sort of crisis of privacy that we have in this country, the european clash and they've got the conflict. but on the one hand, were told to privacy is in our own best interest with films wherever we go, the automatic number paid page recognition. our every move is monitored for

our own benefit. but at the top of the tree, we have a few judges telling us what we can read, what we can think and what we can say. and that does have son i think unfortunate connection with the absence of any commentary, let alone criticize them up what happens in privacy actions in the courts tradition. every single paper has been sent on not. yet that does coincide with the complete climate of the press. super injunctions and injunctions >> the super injunctions issued >> to think they have?

[inaudible] >> i am a lawyer and i believe we are lower then you have scum of the earth. >> tummy when it comes to fee charging. >> is there some quart of connection that they step them off subversively through twitter and up in the the press. and now "news of the world" been escaped gate, but actually everybody else -- are all silenced. >> the judges have sent them on the back dvds, even stating an injunction is being routed. >> i think to the point of your question is this all connected, of course it is. it's all connected in a sans necessary connected because of the fundamental changes, many tech illogical but is that we

could all record anything, we could all publish anything and therefore any sort of practical line between private life and public life has disappeared in the therefore relying cultural constraints, particularly in cases of tabloids we know really exist and therefore focused very much on legal constraints. i certainly don't think -- we dwdwdwdwt forget theredwdwdwdwdw

but doesn't that indicate thatdw that solution in particular is that going to work if you wantdw to stop people breaking storiesw >> part of the key here isdwdwdw separating some of the problemsw out because we mash themdwdwdwdw altogetherdw becomes impossiblew disaggregate anything. dwere are all sort ofdwdwdwdwdww dwmplexitiedws clearly arounddww privacy.dwdwdwdwdw the difficulty i was just dwntioning arounddwdw dwpdwridww anydw sort of privacy law, whicw is whydw some people talking abw working out somedwdw other way w dealing with it that way. having said that, we have todwdw sort of also think about in thiw dww environment, it's not verydw hopeful just saying forget it.dw everything goes becausedwdwdwdww technology allows it is not thew

movies behaved as a society indw past.dwdwdw we've comedwdw to hopefully adww relatively consensus about where dwe line should be drawn anddwdw dwdw we drive a lot and otherdw dwpects arounddw this.dwdwdwdwdw >> let's take another question. dws, in the blue.dwdwdwdwdwdwdww >> this panel is five terrificdw dwurnalistic minds.dwdwdwdwdw surely you can come up withdwdww something better than your scription of rupert murdoch a the dirt cancer. >> what a great entrepreneur. is that all? terrific entrepreneur, worked wonders. and as i said before, in expanding access to all sorts of things which were very  it in the past, sports, music film, clearly -- i would say sitive as i await the negatives. that's a fact.

but it's unfortunate. >> 82,004 piece by john lanchester when he reviewed rupert murdoch was most interesting analysis that i've seen where he takes on the whol question of is he a double, is he not a devil? ..